That is the question
facing a federal appeals court in California.
Michelle Baker was
hired on a one year contract to teach in a Catholic school.
As the school year
began, Baker fell in the stairwell at school, and struck her head on the concrete.
She was unable to get up for ten minutes. She was diagnosed with a concussion.
She received an anti-nausea medication and stayed out of work for ten days.
She provided her principal with updated medical information in conjunction with asking for leave time.
She provided her principal with updated medical information in conjunction with asking for leave time.
Two weeks later, Baker was cleared to return to work. During this time—and after she was let go from her job—she
suffered from double vision, blurred vision, memory issues, hearing issues,
dizziness, and nightmares.
Baker claims she was
competent, nonetheless, to perform her job duties.
At no time did a medical
provider inform her that she could not perform her duties as a teacher.
The crux of the issue
is the reason the school did not renew her contract.
At that time, her principal said
that Baker did not not begin class with a prayer as required, incorrectly
solved a math problem on the board and failed to correct the answer when a
student pointed out the problem, and did not manage her class well.
She alleged that the reason she was let go was her disability.
Baker says that the reasons given were “pretext”—a
sham for the actual reason that the school did not want to try to accommodate
her occasional absences to get follow-up medical help, nor her small mental slip-ups.
The trial court
dismissed her complaint. The judge reasoned that she was permitted to finish
the year, and the notice of non-renewal came much later that term. Thus, there was no proof of disability discrimination.
The appeals court
will take up the legal issue of whether the trial court failed to apply an
expanded definition of disability under 2008 amendments to the ADA.
No comments:
Post a Comment